Town Square

Sen. Portman To Reverse On Same-Sex Marriage

Original post made
by dublinmike, Dublin,
on Mar 15, 2013

Former VP Cheney;Larry Pressler, former Rep. Senator; Bob Barr,former congressman from Georgia and many, many more former Congressmen and women; now Sen. Portman support same-sex gay rights and/or marriage.

The same-sex couples that live in the Tri-valley want the same things we want: safe streets, strong economy, strong vibrant communities, willing to work hard to get a head, no hand-outs, be treated fairly, and strong families. They work in commercial sales, they are project engineers, work at wine tasting rooms, teach our kids, managers at our food stores and more.

I hope our US Supreme Court does the right thing for humans rather than lean towards narrow-minded and debunked religious bigotry to support the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to overturn Prop. 8.

Posted by A Neighbor
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 15, 2013 at 8:36 pm

While I am pleased that Portman changed his position, I am displeased with his comments about why he made the change. He said he had not thought much about the matter until his son came out, and only then did Portman begin to consider the subject of gay marriage more critically. He was a vocal and staunch opponent of gay marriage prior to this announcement, but admits he did not actually give it much consideration? Ohio needs a new senator if this is any indication of how he goes about doing his job.

Posted by MePartyPatriot
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 16, 2013 at 8:33 amMePartyPatriot is a registered user.

A Neighbor, while I agree with you I have come to realize that better than late is better than not at all.

If you met me in my late teens and twenties, you would have heard me say derogatory comments about Gays. When I learned from a guy I worked with part-time at a pizza place that he was gay I had to step back and wondered why I was fearful. Quite a revelation.

Posted by Citizen Paine
a resident of Danville
on Mar 16, 2013 at 10:36 am

Sometimes, Life Happens -- even to Republicans. But why do they seem to be so resistant to empathy, except when circumstances directly impinge upon their own family units? I mean, I'm glad Sen. Portman has found his way to the party, but he's very late -- and he had to get directions from his kid.

Perhaps if Mr. Boehner could lead his Reps on a month-long expedition to pick strawberries, or experience long term unemployment, or abject urban poverty -- well then, just maybe, we could make some progress.

Posted by Citizen Paine
a resident of Danville
on Mar 16, 2013 at 11:17 pm

Sadly, folks who oppose marital civil rights often seem to be fixated on that one variation on sexual expression -- which is already legal in every state, regardless of whether it's conducted 'twixt same or opposite sex couples. It's apparent to me that those folks must not be successfully married, themselves -- otherwise, they'd be aware that marriage is so much richer, and about so much more than just sexual expression.

I've also heard it said that sex is like oxygen: it's not really such a huge deal -- unless you're not getting any.

Now, I'm not sure how any of that might apply to any of the commenters in this thread, but the hostility expressed in terms like "back door version," "fruits, nuts and flakes" etc. betrays an approach to this issue that has nothing at all to do with "the sanctity of marriage" and everything to do with an irrational animus against a defined group of other people.

Posted by liberalism is a disease
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 22, 2013 at 3:19 pmliberalism is a disease is a registered user.

'irrational animus against a defined group of other people' Did you really say animus?
I'm curious about this 'defined group of people'.....separate, but somehow equal? Not quite. You can't have it both ways, you can't redefine devient as normal no matter how many times you repeat it, lobby for it or stamp your feet up and down and throw a hissy fit in the Castro or in court.

Perfectly good word -- get used to it. Justice Kennedy used it a lot in Romer v. Evans, the case that dooms Prop 8. If you think it sounds like a body part, then welcome to the seventh grade. BTW, many seventh graders know how to spell deviAnt.

In Trudy's comment she clearly expressed intense dislike, hatred and animosity toward a group defined by their sexual orientation. You can define or classify people many ways -- say, by their height, age, hair color, handedness or spelling ability.

14th Amendment doesn't get involved unless the government makes the classification, and then treats people differently because of that characteristic. Depending on what it is, the government either has to have at least a rational basis for doing so, or a "compelling state interest" served by doing so -- a much harder test, reserved for important stuff ("fundamental rights") -- like marriage. Prop 8 is the government, marriage is the right, sexual orientation is the classification scheme -- and there is no justification, other than animus. You are out of luck -- and if the word "animus" does not appear in the majority opinion, I will eat my shorts.

Now, my point to Trudy, and to you, Mr. Devience, is that your focus on one form of sexual expression is utterly irrelevant -- that act is already legal everywhere, whether performed by gays or heteros (calling Dr. Kinsey). That ship has sailed, and your fixation on it says aLot more about you, and your misunderstanding of marriage, than about the people you irrationally despise.

Finally, where you got this "separate but equal" nonsense is beyond me -- did you pull it out of your animus?